Originally Posted by
DrunkCargo
Interesting final sentence: "However I suspect that Air Canada is within its rights to suspend elite benefits (though not to refuse refund) for tickets they believe were booked for the purpose of obtaining lounge access or going airside in an airport without intent to fly."
Is it possible that the plaintiff did indeed seek access to the lounge merely for the pleasure of doing so, rather than having so many intended trips canceled at last minute? There exists lots of FT evidence to suggest easy access to free drinks was of interest to several members; the plaintiff included. Perhaps the airline's claims are not entirely without merit.
As an aside, "going airside without intent to fly" is an airline concern as an airport stakeholder, but is not their matter to enforce.